Regarding the bold, there is also risk in that assumption. What if the assets don't appreciate as expected? Man, being a GM is seriously a tough gig.

100% agree, knowing when to trade your players is like a high stakes game of chicken. As much as we kill BC for his 'win now' gambles, he's done a really good job of drafting players that have very stable NBA value in the form of skillsets coveted at their respective positions:

Valanciunas: rebounding, defense, and great foul shooting
Ross: defense and 3-point shooting, with great athleticism
Davis: rebounding and defense, again with great athleticism if not size/strength (yet)
DeRozan: mid-range game and ability to get to the line

I feel like any deal for a franchise player would probably have to include deRozan because a) he's under contract at a reasonable rate and b) you're probably going to have to replace some scoring if you're trading an elite player for him, as well as put some asses in the seats. Now you throw in one of the bigs, maybe a pick or another of the 4 above and an expiring deal or one of Amir and Fields depending on need and you've got an excellent package. The only thing missing really is an expiring deal. In fact you could easilly argue that's equal to or better than than teams got for Bynum, or Howard, or Paul, or Williams, or Melo, or any of the other superstars traded in recent memory.

To answer Akasingh, the NBA is an extremely fluid league when it comes to star movement. Look at the Deron Williams trade: nobody even saw that coming. Same with Harden. And with the luxury tax penalties getting progressively more restrictive, you're going to see more and more teams unable or unwilling to pay into the tax. As for which stars might be coming down the pipe, the best bet are those players who would need be eligible to sign an extension in the next 2-3 years. John Wall and Kyrie Irving are two examples of players whose teams haven't done a great job of drafting around them (though Wall would have to develop a lot in order to be worthy of a huge trade package, you might be able to get him for cheap if Washington is convinced he won't re-sign). Love seems to be perpetually unhappy in Minny, nobody knows what's going to happen with Bynum, or Howard if the Lakers end up missing the playoffs, etc etc.

Admittedly most of the players the Raps have a shot at aren't real top-15 type guys (I probably overstepped a bit there, top-25 might be more accurate), or at least won't be when they're acquired. You'd probably have to aim for guys that haven't reached their peak yet but aren't happy with their current situation or need to be dealt because of money issues. I think Harden is the prime example there. There's also the possibility of trading for a very high draft pick if a team is looking at a roster redundancy. The point is, if I'm the GM then I'd rather wait for a superstar than settle for a borderline all-star, especially if it's a borderline all-star that I have to pay like a superstar to keep around.

Maybe this is the wrong question to be asking here because it's a bit of a derailment, but why do people feel like the Raps need to make a trade sooner rather than later? Is it because you feel like BC is going to make one anyway with his job on the line, or do you genuinely feel like now is the time? Because personally, I think trading away any of DeRozan, Ross, Davis or Val would be a HUGE mistake unless you're getting a top-15, franchise type player back.

Looking at the team's current composition, they have those four young players I mentioned above, none of which projects as being a 'lead the team to the promised land' type, but all of whom would be excellent chips in a trade for such a player. They also have a couple of useful role player types with mid-sized contracts in Amir and Fields, and as long as they have over their draft pick this year, they have the option to trade a pick as well. There's also bargs, but frankly I'm going to ignore him for now because we have no idea what his value is. To me, the Raps have an excellent mix of assets for trading for a franchise player.

So why would you chip away at trading for guys like Gay or Smith or Granger, who likely won't have a significant impact on the team's ability to get out of the first round, when you could wait a bit longer, let your assets appreciate in value, and save them for when a REAL opportunity presents itself?

I am not keen for trade which gives away young assests but since 2006 only AB and JC have been here and we really need to move forward without them.

Scouting report + Deep-shooting forward with a quick, accurate trigger. Very big for a wing. + Very effective going right but has a weak left hand. Draws fouls, money from the line. + Solid defender with good size. Limited court vision -- drives to score.

Analysis Granger's game isn't always easy on the eyes, iso-ing for 20-footers or pretending he's running a pick-and-roll for something other than his own jump shot, but it is effective. He generated a slew of shots with very few turnovers -- cutting his rate sharply from a season earlier -- and his TS% was well above the norm for a small forward.

Break it down and it was mostly the 3s that did it -- he shot 38.1 percent from distance, but hit only 43.4 percent of his 2s. However, he drew a lot of fouls for a jump shooter and shot 87.3 percent, the best mark of any small forward; between that and the 3s, it offset his subpar shooting inside the arc. In particular, contested long 2s have been a problem for him. He shot only 36.3 percent on 2s beyond 10 feet last season, after hitting 35.0 percent the season before.

As for passing, Granger didn't really do that much -- only 11 small forwards assisted less often -- and that's the biggest limitation on his game. On the flip side, however, he'd also benefit from a more natural point guard running things and getting him cleaner looks at jumpers, rather than forcing him to iso so much.

Defensively, I thought Granger was one of the league's most improved players. His effort was much more consistent than a season earlier, and all his statistical grades were positive. The Pacers gave up 3.6 points per 100 possessions fewer with him on the court and he allowed only a 12.7 PER to opposing small forwards, according to 82games.com. Notably, Indiana also put him in size mismatches less because it hardly ever played small with him at the 4.

By the way, just wanted to throw this out there since I just looked it up and was very surprised:

Ed Davis' current WS/48 is 1.48
Rudy Gay has topped that 0 times in 7 seasons.
Danny Granger has topped that twice in 7 seasons.
Josh Smith has topped that once in 9 seasons.

Ed Davis' current PER is 18.1
Rudy Gay has topped that 0 times in 7 seasons.
Danny Granger has topped that 3 times in 7 seasons.
Josh Smith has topped that 5 times in 9 seasons.

Now, by no means are those numbers some sort final judgement on a player's quality or value. But I think they illustrate that in his third season Davis is not only coming into his own and becoming a player on par with those names, but also has a good chance at exceeding their production. So why would you give up on him now unless you felt like the player you were getting in return was going to make a major impact in the standings? That goes for the other 3 most recent picks as well: unless you feel like you're going to make a major jump, why give up on them for incremental gains?

Smith would bolt as nice as this pick up would be.. and definitely would start showing we can attract talent ..having Lowry, and Josh Smith.. Jonas with some seasoning.. we should be able to get a legit SF to come play for us. or if we want play smith at the 3 but I still think he's better suited as a 4 since he's not a ball handler

[QUOTE=Lark Benson;178460]Maybe this is the wrong question to be asking here because it's a bit of a derailment, but why do people feel like the Raps need to make a trade sooner rather than later? Is it because you feel like BC is going to make one anyway with his job on the line, or do you genuinely feel like now is the time? Because personally, I think trading away any of DeRozan, Ross, Davis or Val would be a HUGE mistake unless you're getting a top-15, franchise type player back.

Looking at the team's current composition, they have those four young players I mentioned above, none of which projects as being a 'lead the team to the promised land' type, but all of whom would be excellent chips in a trade for such a player. They also have a couple of useful role player types with mid-sized contracts in Amir and Fields, and as long as they have over their draft pick this year, they have the option to trade a pick as well. There's also bargs, but frankly I'm going to ignore him for now because we have no idea what his value is. To me, the Raps have an excellent mix of assets for trading for a franchise player.

So why would you chip away at trading for guys like Gay or Smith or Granger, who likely won't have a significant impact on the team's ability to get out of the first round, when you could wait a bit longer, let your assets appreciate in value, and save them for when a REAL opportunity presents itself?[/QUOTE

Just playing devils advocate here, but how many franchise players have been traded away recenty that didn't force their way off their team? Joe Johnson maybe if you want to consider him a franchise talent but I think he's in the same category as Gay and J. Smith. All the true franchise talent you say we should save our youth to trade for forced their way out on their contract year by not agreeing to signing an extension with teams that their team wanted to trade them to. And frankly if you have a true franchise talent and they are not in a contract year then their team is not looking to trade them anyway. So count me on the boat to make a trade sooner than later, as I see no scenario where we could force a true franchise talent to play here via a trade.

Two years left 13 million. Gives us a lot of money for the 2014 free agency. For the next year and half he will play hard . He will be motivated to play well cause he'll probably be playing for his last NBA contract.

I definitely don't want to give up Ross or JV, and it would take some very enticing for me to give up Davis, and to a lesser extent DD. I'm an Amir homer and think he's a glue guy and a VERY useful role player.

Anyone and everyone else is for sale. I would LOVE to get rid of Bargs+Kleiza, but I'm sure there aren't to many GM's dying to acquire them.

I'm pretty okay playing out the season with the team we've got. JV should be much more productive next year, and Ross should be able to take on a slightly bigger role maybe even start by season's end. Davis is still on the rise and I don't see how we win a trade that includes him.

"We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

Just playing devils advocate here, but how many franchise players have been traded away recenty that didn't force their way off their team? Joe Johnson maybe if you want to consider him a franchise talent but I think he's in the same category as Gay and J. Smith. All the true franchise talent you say we should save our youth to trade for forced their way out on their contract year by not agreeing to signing an extension with teams that their team wanted to trade them to. And frankly if you have a true franchise talent and they are not in a contract year then their team is not looking to trade them anyway. So count me on the boat to make a trade sooner than later, as I see no scenario where we could force a true franchise talent to play here via a trade.

It's not about "forcing" a guy to play here at all, it's about jumping on an opportunity. Again, the Harden trade is a prime example. So is the Deron Williams trade: he didn't force his way out, Jazz management simply preferred to get assets instead of playing the free agency hostage game. That's the big advantage in having assets at different positions: you can trade away a couple and still have enough left in the cupboard to field a competitive team, and that's especially true if you've let them mature and they're ready to contribute consistently around a franchise guy.

So let me ask you a counter-question: how many of the franchise guys that were traded recently subsequently left the team that traded for them high and dry? They almost always take the extra money and contract year on the table.

A trade for a borderline all-star like Gay or Granger or Smith is going to be available every year (that's why they're on the block after all), but ask yourself, why make the deal THIS year? It's likely not going to catapult the team into the playoffs, so what's the point? All you're doing by being impatient is handcuffing yourself down the line.

It's not about "forcing" a guy to play here at all, it's about jumping on an opportunity. Again, the Harden trade is a prime example. So is the Deron Williams trade: he didn't force his way out, Jazz management simply preferred to get assets instead of playing the free agency hostage game. That's the big advantage in having assets at different positions: you can trade away a couple and still have enough left in the cupboard to field a competitive team, and that's especially true if you've let them mature and they're ready to contribute consistently around a franchise guy.

So let me ask you a counter-question: how many of the franchise guys that were traded recently subsequently left the team that traded for them high and dry? They almost always take the extra money and contract year on the table.

A trade for a borderline all-star like Gay or Granger or Smith is going to be available every year (that's why they're on the block after all), but ask yourself, why make the deal THIS year? It's likely not going to catapult the team into the playoffs, so what's the point? All you're doing by being impatient is handcuffing yourself down the line.

It's fine if we call it jumping on an opportunity but my point is where do you see an opportunity? Harden and D. will were both in contract years. Deron was widely reported in not being happy in Utah, and both New York and Brooklyn were attached to rumours regarding trade destinations. Harden also in a contract year and not happy with what OKC was offering him was not committing to their team. In both instances it's easy to argue they were forcing their way out and had the power to sign an extension with whomever the pleased. Albeit it was much more the case with Deron. But Deron was also the proven franchise player and Harden was the non proven franchise player whom would fit into the Gay, Smith category.

I'm not sure how your counter question fits into this exactly. Seems like a separate topic.

You're right about having borderline all star guys like Gay and Smith available every year, and there is no reason you have to trade for them. But I would consider Gay about as good of an SF as will ever be available to us, J. smith as good of a PF as will ever be available to us (but only trade for him if he signs an extension) and most importantly I don't see a team trading their franchise player to us with years still left on their contract. Not unless the are damaged goods like Bynum or Arenas.